Ouch.I really appreciate anyone responding to my posts.I do not intend to annoy,but seek answers from clever and respected people and only those that care would respond.I cant thank you enough for putting up with me.I am discussing my research,whilst being knocked down for that.I don't get the impression others have done their research and believe in what they see.ask a surveyor what barriers they come across daily.they might say that I have many valid points and the Bedford experiment could either be right or wrong.However-its funny that we have not redone these experiments(gravity and sphere)in 120 years.It cant be a popular site as its only the moderators answering the questions.atmospheric refraction is insteresting too.

its a shame that this site could never prove gravity(and that objects of different sizes attract each other)(of which newton did say planetary movement and gravity on earth were 2 different things)-and now the earth being a sphere. I was expecting good material like-the Bedford experiment that was redone and proved the earth was a sphere and many more things.Its annoying to others when they think that they could never convince a non-believer,but when a believer challenges what they believe,then they are considered arrogant or mad.If all I say is true-then the others would be arrogant and mad.But you cant deny my picture,thus no-one is getting in this debate are they,or maybe there aren't that many members on here as u have p___d them all off?

.... Also,most pictures you have seen showing curvature of any kind would have been using reflecting lenses and not refracting due to cost and ease to use as refracting are a lot trickier apparently.

The reason you had this reaction from Alan is that you have confused a number of issues, as you are prone to do.Mirror lenses (reflecting) tend to be telephoto, whereas extreme wide angle lenses (which are often used for landscape photos can sometimes show a false curvature) are refracting.

If I thought it was worthwhile responding I would, but I did explain why ancients did not believe the earth was flat. However, you misquoted me on that and have since repeated the error so I can only assume you don't believe anything I have said or will say.Bit like the gravity thread really, where you decided on a closed mind approach.

At the end of the day it's up to you whether a discussion flourishes, but if people see the discussion is pointless they will not join in.

Logged

and the misguided shall lead the gullible, the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

.... Also,most pictures you have seen showing curvature of any kind would have been using reflecting lenses and not refracting due to cost and ease to use as refracting are a lot trickier apparently.

The reason you had this reaction from Alan is that you have confused a number of issues, as you are prone to do.Mirror lenses (reflecting) tend to be telephoto, whereas extreme wide angle lenses (which are often used for landscape photos can sometimes show a false curvature) are refracting.

If I thought it was worthwhile responding I would, but I did explain why ancients did not believe the earth was flat. However, you misquoted me on that and have since repeated the error so I can only assume you don't believe anything I have said or will say.Bit like the gravity thread really, where you decided on a closed mind approach.

At the end of the day it's up to you whether a discussion flourishes, but if people see the discussion is pointless they will not join in.

1.you are correct.what shape are the mirrors?curved?2.you re explanation was a wiki link-flawed as early man way before the day they calculated the circumference(still didn't prove a sphere)of the earth assumed many things.The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.Note that the lunar eclipse observation mentioned by Gregory Grant suggests that the Earth is round in 2-dimensions (an Earth shaped like a flat disc is consistent with this observation), but does not provide evidence regarding the Earth's 3-dimensional shape. I believe the answer lies mostly in Greek's cosmic philosophy of the way the universe should be. They saw spheres as one of the most symmetrical simplistic shapes, and if our earth, which for them was at the center of the cosmos, would be the shape of anything it would be a sphere. Of course, the calculations they used and observations they made lined up with a sphere, so it seemed that it was the most reasonable thing for earth to be. Now, many philosophers of science might argue that the only reason one would choose some model over another, which calculate the same and take account of all phenomena, is mostly due to simplicity. Not because one necessarily represents reality more so than the other. Hence, I'm sure a creative philosopher could argue that your torus world view can't be shown to be wrong if you find clever ways to account for all the various phenomena. I have never not believed anything you or anyone has said-I only asked for the correct answer which has been evaded and answered with other peoples answers.there is no proof on earth of gravity or spherical earth.I say there is no proof,unless you have some.if someone didn't accept my answer,I would research more.it is a shame that this is straight forward observation that we have missed the point of my posts-why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.Im sure u have doubts about many things and dare to question as others would discredit you.how do u think I feel-I have no-one to talk about this with

It's not the shape of the mirror, that is only reflecting 'scope, it's the angle the light enters the lens. Briefly, imagine a line from the centre of the lens to the far distance (say 1km) dead ahead, now imagine a similar line from centre of lens but off at 45deg still 1km, now imagine lots of these lines at different angles, these lines at 1km describe the arc of a circle, but the sensor in the camera is flat, so you are trying to squeeze curved perspective onto a flat surface, not easy, you get barrel distortion. Telephoto lenses have a narrow field of view so the image you are looking at is effectively flat, no problem. You will need to get a good book on optics to find out more.

The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.

Actually it wasn't that way round. Lunar eclipses are not very frequent, and chances are they will be cloud covered. Far more frequent - every month - are the phases of the moon. It doesn't take long to figure out that the moon's phases are due to it being a sphere (you can easily work out why) and then to wonder whether the earth might be as well. There are then a lot of confirming factors, ships masts in line, poles in lakes, the view from the bottom of wells, view from high mountain - have you ever seen the earth's shadow moving across the world below when you are 4000m up? Curved.Ah yes, then there is the lunar eclipse. If it always occurred with moon overhead and sun below earth, what you say would work. But it also occurs with the moon low in the sky. Try this, take a coin and view it face on, a circle, now tilt it more and more, you will see the edge is an ellipse. So when the moon is low in the sky a disc world would project an ellipse onto the moon, it doesn't. I wonder why not. Why is it always the same circular shape?

why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.

Are you saying you have been to Australia and S America and seen this?This conflicts with observations made by my daughter. Like me she is interested in celestial navigation and does a lot of star gazing and measurements. She has trekked across Africa, down S America, been to Vietnam, Antarctica and lived in Australia. She assures me the Crux is the same in all those locations. She does wonder if you were looking at the false cross or the diamond cross, apparently an easy mistake to make.

I have sailed north south, I have seen the curvature of the earth from high up, I have observed ships and lighthouses on the horizon, I have observed the lack of parallax in the North Star and measured its location, I have done the poles in water experiment with laser. I know what I believe from all that and other info I have. As you say, none of this is proof, but to be honest it troubles me not if others wish to believe something else, so I'm off to find more interesting ideas.

« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 23:05:46 by Colin2B »

Logged

and the misguided shall lead the gullible, the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

.. you can see craters on the moon, which even Gazza will admit, is a lot further away.

But apparently Polaris is closer than the moon, if the perspective argument is to be believed. Of course then it would have a different E-W elevation (time coordinated) from Sligo and Cambridge, I assume you are going to claim it doesn't?

Logged

and the misguided shall lead the gullible, the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

If the earth was flat, you could see New York from Sligo. You can't. Not a problem with distance - you can see craters on the moon, which even Gazza will admit, is a lot further away.

well the moon doesn't have to much atmosphere distorting our view.funny how you can see craters on an object 225/252000 miles away and its 2159 miles wide. amazing, so if you were high enough, youcould probably see 3000 miles away without the distortion of the atmosphere.why cant you see a cruiseship on the horizon-same anology.

It's not the shape of the mirror, that is only reflecting 'scope, it's the angle the light enters the lens. Briefly, imagine a line from the centre of the lens to the far distance (say 1km) dead ahead, now imagine a similar line from centre of lens but off at 45deg still 1km, now imagine lots of these lines at different angles, these lines at 1km describe the arc of a circle, but the sensor in the camera is flat, so you are trying to squeeze curved perspective onto a flat surface, not easy, you get barrel distortion. Telephoto lenses have a narrow field of view so the image you are looking at is effectively flat, no problem. You will need to get a good book on optics to find out more.

The ancients understood that a lunar eclipse is caused when the earth gets between the sun and the moon. They saw that the shadow the earth casts on the moon is round. From that it wasn't too far of a leap for them to conclude the earth is a sphere.

Actually it wasn't that way round. Lunar eclipses are not very frequent, and chances are they will be cloud covered. Far more frequent - every month - are the phases of the moon. It doesn't take long to figure out that the moon's phases are due to it being a sphere (you can easily work out why) and then to wonder whether the earth might be as well. There are then a lot of confirming factors, ships masts in line, poles in lakes, the view from the bottom of wells, view from high mountain - have you ever seen the earth's shadow moving across the world below when you are 4000m up? Curved.how can the earths shadow move acroos the earth?

Ah yes, then there is the lunar eclipse. If it always occurred with moon overhead and sun below earth, what you say would work. But it also occurs with the moon low in the sky. Try this, take a coin and view it face on, a circle, now tilt it more and more, you will see the edge is an ellipse. So when the moon is low in the sky a disc world would project an ellipse onto the moon, it doesn't. I wonder why not. Why is it always the same circular shape?

I guess we would mean new moon-have you ever studied the 28 day cycle day in /day out.waxing and waning moons?

why do you see the southern star trail with a central point from south America and not Australia/HHMMM.

Are you saying you have been to Australia and S America and seen this?This conflicts with observations made by my daughter. Like me she is interested in celestial navigation and does a lot of star gazing and measurements. She has trekked across Africa, down S America, been to Vietnam, Antarctica and lived in Australia. She assures me the Crux is the same in all those locations. She does wonder if you were looking at the false cross or the diamond cross, apparently an easy mistake to make.

I have sailed north south, I have seen the curvature of the earth from high up, I have observed ships and lighthouses on the horizon, I have observed the lack of parallax in the North Star and measured its location, I have done the poles in water experiment with laser. I know what I believe from all that and other info I have. As you say, none of this is proof, but to be honest it troubles me not if others wish to believe something else, so I'm off to find more interesting ideas.

I have an idea for you.how can a waning moon get lit from a light source on the other side 10-14 days a month.bizarre.

you say curvature-ive been in an aeroplane hovering over London to get to luton and it was not curved.this was way before coming acroos the flat earth theory.look up at the sky with a flat earth perspective-you will believe that its not curved.